You are here

Mallick: Time for someone to speak up for shy girls

The point is that in a society that mandates separation of church and state, the concern in public schools must always be for the student who feels FORCED to participate in religious activity rather than the student who WANTS to. Saying, oh but it's their choice whether to participate or not simply is not adequate, and hasn't been for a really long time.

But we don't have that. I went to a publicly funded, co-religious, Catholic-run, school. (Which, in retrospect... but you do a lot of dumb things when you're a teen, like fail to take spironolactone.) We don't have the same anti-establismentarianism in our laws that the Americans do..

Sorry, but this is simply untrue. Yes, part of the Constitution guarantees funding for certain denominational schools existing at Confederation (which most provinces have eliminated through bilateral amendment btw). That does not mean that state endorsement of religion in other contexts is ok. It is not. It violates the Charter.

I cannot think of a mainstream religion, at its most conservative and orthodox end of the spectrum, that isn't sexist.

Again, you're coming from the perspective of a Canadian atheist who, if I had to guess, has never actually taken the time to study the scriptures and doctrines of the religions you condemn. Why not ask the women who actually practice these religions whether THEY feel that they're sexist, rather than trying to speak on behalf of women you don't know and will likely never meet?

You're absolutely correct - I am Canadian and am an atheist. The rest is what we call an ad hominem attack, based on nothing but bigoted speculation of who I am, what I know and who I know, because I'm atheist. Attacking the individual and not the argument violates babble policy. I suggest you give it a read.

I'd also like to point out to you - and those who seem to have forgotten - that this is the FEMINIST forum, a safe space for pro-feminist discussion. This is not a place where feminists have to defend feminist thought.

Islamic feminists have been pushing for equity in prayer and in the Mosque since the 19th century. Islamic feminism is based in the Qur'an and Islamic history, ie, since in the 7th century the prophet Muhammad didn't put women behind partitions, the barriers are sexist man-made inventions.

Virtually every major religion has feminist theology that looks to re-interpret scripture and doctrine to promote gender equity, but there is strenuous opposition by the entrenched patriarchy.

The point is that in a society that mandates separation of church and state, the concern in public schools must always be for the student who feels FORCED to participate in religious activity rather than the student who WANTS to. Saying, oh but it's their choice whether to participate or not simply is not adequate, and hasn't been for a really long time.

But we don't have that. I went to a publicly funded, co-religious, Catholic-run, school. (Which, in retrospect... but you do a lot of dumb things when you're a teen, like fail to take spironolactone.) We don't have the same anti-establismentarianism in our laws that the Americans do..

Sorry, but this is simply untrue. Yes, part of the Constitution guarantees funding for certain denominational schools existing at Confederation (which most provinces have eliminated through bilateral amendment btw). That does not mean that state endorsement of religion in other contexts is ok. It is not. It violates the Charter.

Which section of the Charter does it violate? As RTTG points out, there is no non-establishment clause in the Charter. Has the "freedom of religion" been interpreted by the courts as invalidating state endorsement? I'm asking, because I really don't know.

The point is that in a society that mandates separation of church and state, the concern in public schools must always be for the student who feels FORCED to participate in religious activity rather than the student who WANTS to. Saying, oh but it's their choice whether to participate or not simply is not adequate, and hasn't been for a really long time.

But we don't have that. I went to a publicly funded, co-religious, Catholic-run, school. (Which, in retrospect... but you do a lot of dumb things when you're a teen, like fail to take spironolactone.) We don't have the same anti-establismentarianism in our laws that the Americans do..

Sorry, but this is simply untrue. Yes, part of the Constitution guarantees funding for certain denominational schools existing at Confederation (which most provinces have eliminated through bilateral amendment btw). That does not mean that state endorsement of religion in other contexts is ok. It is not. It violates the Charter.

Which section of the Charter does it violate? As RTTG points out, there is no non-establishment clause in the Charter. Has
the "freedom of religion" been interpreted by the courts as invalidating state endorsement? I'm asking, because I really
don't know.

It would violate sections 2a and 15 but would most likely proceed on the basis of 2a (freedom of conscience and religion).
And just to be clear, the lack of a so-called establishment clause is completely irrelevant to the question of the limits of state
entanglement with religion in Canada. The Supreme Court confirmed that in the very first Charter decision to deal with freedom of
religion: Big M Drug Mart. let me put it another way. Were this ever to be litigated in court, the fact that the Constitution
requires some religious schools to be funded would have absolutely no bearing on whether this policy violates the Charter. Zero.

ETA to answer your second question. Yes, that was the basis for the Big M decision.

Well then we run into the question of whether the government establishing one religious school means that it's discriminating on the basis of religion with respect to other schools... I mean, it's true parliament can do it, that's what the reasonable limits and not-withstanding clauses, which I can't stand, are for, but will it violate the human rights regime that we have created?

This is the problem with the written constitution: A perception that anything that doesn't violate it, is therefore perfectly acceptable. prorogueing parliament when it's about to express its will on a prospective coalition government? Charter doesn't say no. Teargassing protesters at the FTAA? Reasonable limit on freedom of expression.

To say that just because the charter doesn't prohibit a law that it doesn't violate centuries of living, commonlaw and precedent doesn't mean you'd better have a demonstrably good reason for throwing it aside beyond the theoretical construction that all religions are sexist, ergo religious schools are sexist.

Institutions exist and they need to be contra-indicated before they can be reasonably repealed. In the case of LGBT rights, Barry Goldwater said, "Why not? Homosexuals have been serving honourably since before the time of Ceasar." There was evidence, a long-standing reason to scrap a failed system of heteronormativity, and thus, a classical conservative would say that LGBT rights were a logical extension of human rights... but disestablishment is not the same as secularism, as much as it would be neat and tidy for an agnosticish-atheist like me to believe. We guarantee freedom of association, as well, and aren't religious orders associations? Don't we let charter schools design their own program with a great deal of leeway if they adhere to the curriculum?

In fact there is a strong argument that our Charter protects freedom of religion MORE broadly than the US because it includes "innocent" state action that nonetheless has negative EFFECTS. In the US, if the state does not intend to endorse religion it actually has quite a bit of leeway in its laws and policies.

I'll agree. I'm just sayiing it's not a bad thing to respect religious education without evidence that it promotes more sexism... associations aren't evidence, aren't correlation... if you look at poll after poll in the US, for example, Catholics are more progressive and anti-sexist than the country... so how is that squared with an admittedly sexist church heirarchy? You could point to discrimination in religious schools for example, but then you'd need a case study, at least.

And Alberta has not... there's nearly half the country. And to be sure, I'm surprised you didn't mention Jan Butterman's firing from ECS for having the temerity to be a man.

Anyway, I'd support compulsary public education in the official language, complimented by other languages of course, of the student's choice, and let religion happen in the private sphere, but that's me, and I do worry though that all the right-wing parents will start electing public school trustees then instead of catholic... but really that's just gerrymandering.

Just saying it won't be as clean a break and as unambiguous a decision as one thinks.

RTTG, for what it's worth, from a legal standpoint these questions were settled through case law many years ago. They would be unlikely to arise again in that forum though anything is possible. That doesn't settle the broader political questions around fairness and equity re: religious education. As I said, a number of provinces have already corrected the imbalance. Ontario has not.

ETA sorry the above was a response to your post 55.

I think the sexism part is a but of a red herring. At least, it would be unlikely to be where this policy is most vulnerable. The more serious flaws are a. The school appearing to endorse religious teaching and b. The possibility of coercion of at least SOME students. I should point out that you do not need to haul before the court an actual child to say that she felt coerced. It exists as an inherent risk with these kinds of entanglements, particularly where youths are involved.

if you look at poll after poll in the US, for example, Catholics are more progressive and anti-sexist than the country

Well, more precisely, I think, people who answer "Catholic" to the religion question on polls and censuses are more progressive and anti-sexist than the rest of the country.

The problem is that Catholics have a confounding tendency to identify as Catholic, even after they've stopped going to mass or believing in church doctrine. For a Canadian example, you can see this most clearly in Quebec, which has extremely low rates of church attendance and adherence to Catholic doctrine, but an overwhelming number of its population identifying as Catholic on the census.

So, as far as Catholics go, those polls should really make a distinction between nominal and practicing.

The reasoning given for separation of menstruating girls is that they are "unclean". Not that they are uncomfortable, etc.

Is it really? Have you read the Koran in the original Arabic? I haven't and so have no idea but I know, from my reasonably decent knowledge of Hebrew that quite a bit can be lost in translation. And also that some people just make assumptions and spout nonsense when they have no idea what they're talking about. Hell, a few day ago, someone here on Babble was insisting that Michael Coren must be Jewish because the name "Coren" derives from "Cohen". Not remotely true. The two names have nothing to do with each other. Anyone with rudimentary Hebrew knows that.

The same is true of the assumption that verses of scripture relating to periods mean that the women are "unclean". Not true. People say the Torah says that. Not true. The actual word is "tamei" which means "ritually impure" and is completely unrelated to being "unclean" and doesn't just apply to women on their periods. If I enter a cemetary, I'm "ritually impure" until I wash my hands. If I ejaculate anywhere other than inside my wife's vagina I'm "ritually impure" until I immerse in a mikvah.

I'm not an astrophysicist. I would never presume to lecture astrophysicists about some arcane detail of their science. But when it comes to religion, everyone presumes to know what the hell they're talking about and feel entitled to lecture people who actually study and practice a faith as to what their faith is about.

Systemic discrimination does not rely on intent it is determined by effect. I don't care what the original text says it is the effect the particular religious cult has on its members that is important. For example being raised as a man to see myself as the head of the household instead of an equal partner with my wife is misogynist IMO.

No matter the supposed nuances in the text the result is often asshole men with superiority complexes.

I agree with you but I think that the "religion doesn't belong in public schools" point can be made without insulting a religion practiced by well over a billion people, and one most of us know little about, as being inherently sexist.

Personally I do not care what a person's "religion" is. It is their business.

However, that position of mine does not negate the reality that I am also aware and have a right to say that the big religions of the world in general, have done women in general, safety and equality wise, no favours historically, nor currently.

I agree with you but I think that the "religion doesn't belong in public schools" point can be made without insulting a religion practiced by well over a billion people, and one most of us know little about, as being inherently sexist.

I agree with that and with what remind said: There's no need to "insult" anyone. Just exclude all religion (and all elements of religion) from public schools.

I agree with you but I think that the "religion doesn't belong in public schools" point can be made without insulting a religion practiced by well over a billion people, and one most of us know little about, as being inherently sexist.

That's a strawman argument - no one here is insulting Islam or any other religion. Some of us are critical of certain practises - in Islam and in all major religions in general - that exclude and/or segregate women. Some are defensive of practises as they pertain to women. This being the feminist forum, it is our right as feminists to analyse what this means to us.

It does not require a degree in theology, nor does it require one to practise one of the major religions to have this discussion. It is supposed to be a discussion from a pro-feminist POV, which is a broad enough definition to ensure diversity of contribution. If you refuse to - or cannot - understand this, and want to continue your discussion in defense of religion without any feminist analysis, please open a thread in another forum - Body and Soul for example.

Ed. to remove snark. I didn't realize this was in the feminist forum when I posted.

Thank you for the respect, it is appreciated. Though I am not sure why it is in the feminist forum given the reality that it is only to do with the public school system and religion being supported and pushed within that framework. And not really a feminist positioning or discussion at all.

Pretty simple NO religion in public schools. The tangental aspect raised that the school year, well the whole year is based upon what was formerly religious days and non religious days has little to do with this issue. Well actually nothing to do with it.

I agree remind, this really doesn't belong in the feminism forum. I think the right is constantly trying to target feminists as being traitors to our cause because we haven't jumped on the islamaphobia train. These same followers painted feminists as traitors to our cause for not supporting the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. It's bullshit and it's an attempt to co-opt feminist sensibilities to justify their racism and aggression.

Probably it's here because of the segregation by sex which schools have done in a secular context as well.

The question then becomes...

Would we consider this to be an issue if the prayers were not segregated along gender lines?

In other words, is it the gender segregation, or the praying-in-school in and of itself, that is the issue? Heather Mallick's original article focussed on the segregation aspect, so that sort of became part of the discussion right from the start. Whether Mallick should have focussed on that is another question.

But when it comes to religion, everyone presumes to know what the hell they're talking about and feel entitled to lecture people who actually study and practice a faith as to what their faith is about.

So I have to be an expert on tailoring to say the emperor has no clothes?

Mr. Tea wrote:

I would never presume to lecture astrophysicists about some arcane detail of their science.

Apples and oranges. Science is based upon the reality of our physical world while religion is all conjecture without a whiff of evidence to support it.

As an atheist, I concede I am not an expert in any religious text; I was raised by one fervently atheist, and one indifferent parent. But I have observed, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Christianity, Islam and Judaism all seem to have an inordinate obsession with lady parts and what their owners do with them. Perhaps if these religions required men engaged in prayer who experience erections to get up and stand at the back of the room, the women wouldn't feel so singled out.

I absolutely would consider it an issue too. The idea that we have to accommodate prayer in school to be fully accepting of minority groups is, well, frightening.

Wa accomodate plenty of extra-curricular minority activities, GSA's, inclusive public accomodations, sports teams for that matter, because the vast majority of the kids won't get any benefits from athletics. Chess clubs, technological societies... just because this particular set of values is one you find to be abberant doesn't mean the same accusations haven't been levied against these accomodations either.

Yes, I have no problem with a multi-faith prayer room, or a school saying, "where numbers warrant," in response to teaching children second and third, and fifth languages. Part of being a pluralistic society is accepting newcomer's customs and traditions with the caveat that it is implicitly understood that said newcomers respect the existing political values.

In the 1870's we heavily scrutinized the Irish because of the Feinians, guerrilas who attacked our country, murdered one of its founders, a great poet of confederation... And so everything that the Irish did, which was already fairly suspect, became evidence of their unthinking papism. You'll dismiss the paralell now, because you haven't lived in a country where the sectarian divide is intra-relegious instead of extra-religious, but it's there.

I won't discriminate against someone for not sharing my lack of faith. Nor will I let someone determine for their children what that faith or lack thereof is. They are not chattel and I reject any assertion that anyone is.

Religion is a different category completely from physical education, drama, science and chess clubs, etc. It has no place in a secular system. Full stop. Excluding it is NOT discrimination.

There is a strong movement growing to apprehend children from families who are endangering their children's lives by allowing them to be obese to the point their lives are in danger. I am getting to that point with people shoving religion down their kids throats.

Religion has damaged far more people than it has helped. If it ever has. It has no place at all in the public schools system.

I am getting to that point with people shoving religion down their kids' throats.

True, though you're contrasting your position on permissiveness as to ones relationship with food and activity with someone else's prostletizing religious choice.The comparison would be more accurate to what you're advocating and more comparable, if you said that allowing ones children to follow the same religion as you was harming them.

And as to the people it's damaged, society hasn't really given we atheists and agnostics a chance to do the same... I've seen plenty of post-religious bigots, including a professor from Cambridge Mass. who has equated my blood pressure meds to rape. Why not let people freely associate instead... the fear of losing parishoners due to irrelevance has made many churches much more responsible... preserving the social gospel that has been relevant for many people. (Tommy Douglas and Clement Atlee come to mind)

I'm not going to use that metric because, if we're eliminating philosophies that kill, among other evidence, we then have to present (Never mind, when I stopped following this story it radically changed on me.) the deaths that officially atheist regimes have caused, and question which of them are the result of economic warfare and which religious pogroms and which a belief that reason trumps evidence. Just like not everyone supports a Christian Democratic party for the religion, many support it for the economics, many have supported communists for their cultural values, over their economics. People and institutions are not as monolithic as we would have them be.

For the inverse, where learned values of compassion trump moralizing I'd refer you to the fact that in the '68 leadership debate, Tommy Douglas said that homosexuality was a sin... while similtaneously arguing for its legalization.

There... much better analogy upon review. Disregard that earlier road I was going down with Gatti. Was trying to talk about a culture of silence and the extent to which we have failed to even care that it is being preserved but I need a better case study and it's a weaker argument.

In response to Maysie and Mr. Tea, here is her perspective on the reasoning behind excluding menstruating girls from prayer:

Quote:

Regarding menstruation, being "ritually clean" is a part of prayer, but this has little to do with being male or female. It is widely held that a person praying should be clean of blood, fecal matter and urine. If a man cut his finger, he would have to wait until the wound clots before he could pray.

There has been a lot of discussion about the boys and girls being separated. That has irked a lot of people, who assume sitting behind the boys makes the girls second-class citizens.

It depends on where you are to decide whether that is the case or not. From the children's perspective, I don't think the girls would feel discriminated against. Sitting at the back of the bus is deemed cool. So is sitting at the back of the classroom.

Many secular orgs and secular people are opposed to bringing these religions into the public schools.

Many difficult aspects to this arise. For example, for students, the peer-pressure of attending these prayers would be very high. As well, the permission slips required by parents, also exerts a very high social pressure to attend, which has been ruled against in the courts.

This has been dressed up in various ways, but its very obvious that in fact there are religious groups who are trying to get their religion into the public schools, to reach children with their religious beliefs.

If this is allowed to happen in public schools, there will be mass Christian prayers at other schools, even Scientology will be given a room for their "run-downs" and will also be allowed to bring a Scientologist into the school. There is no end to it.

Of course, a simple solution would be to release the school at 3:15 or so on Friday, and leave religion a private matter.

But that is not the objective. The objective is to bring religion back into public schools, using the backdoor. And the last thing we need, is for religous believers of all opposing stripes, to start bringing their belief systems into schools, to turn Canada into a religious battleground like most of the rest of the world.

Very strange that so many on the "left" refuse to see this. Don't think they would be saying the same thing if Harper was bringing Evangelical Christianity back into public schools with a weekly prayer rally for Jesus.

Judges have already ruled that "voluntary" prayers of this type exert peer pressure. So it seems this needs to be taken to the courts, and hopefully this backdoor religion into public schools will be closed immediately.

And please refrain from painting those who are against this as being some fringe group. This is a hot-button issue, that lost John Tory an election.

We'll see how those on the "left" will react when the Harper backed Evangelicals seize on this, and religious anti-abortionists get a plan together, and begin massive campaigns to get Jesus back into public schools this fall. After all, if the Muslim students are allowed about an hour after lunch in the Cafeteria, then so is everyone else. And everyone else will be allowed to bring their own preachers into the school as well. Won't be long until Pro-Life preachers are hitting the public school lunch hour circuit.

School starts again in September and the Friday Muslim prayer service at Valley Park Middle School that sends girls to the back of the room will start again, too. It's the contempt for our Canadian daughters that angers me. I, the Canadian child of immigrants from Scotland and India, cannot stomach this.

Again, during class time, a male will lead prayers with the boys at the front of the room. The girls will be behind them, partially hidden behind overturned cafeteria tables. Menstruating girls will be isolated far behind the other girls, a cruel segregation that I dealt with in a column on Monday.

I've heard from many readers, most of them aghast that young girls are being sent to the back of the bus. In school. But email response is not a measure, only an indication of what interested readers on a particular day.

School is for study. So why are they tolerating this violation of the Education Act, which bans religious services during school hours? The board spokesman referred the Star to its "duty to accommodate" and Dombrowsky's people served up what I can only call a jargon pie.

...Almost every detail of this story is a slap at female dignity. The service can be led by a student rather than an imam, but the student must be male. In Toronto in 2011? It boggles the mind.

I received a polite email - sadly littered with grammatical errors - from a 17-year-old Muslim girl who regularly prayed during class time at her Brampton school. She wrote: "Islam is a modest religion which recognizes the fact that men are aroused by sight and smell therefore the women pray behind so a distance is kept. The point of someone coming to the mosque is to have a connection with God rather than to look at the opposite sex."

But the prayers are not in a mosque but a public school. And are women not also aroused by the sight and smell of men? If women can control themselves, are men not equally civilized?

How does she have an obsession with Islam? She is commenting on a violation of the Education Act.

Given her history of commentary AGAINST Islamophobia and wars of agression in Muslim countries, I am not sure how you can make that claim. She always writes from a feminist perspective and this case is no different.

The problem is that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are anti-feminist at their cores. It's difficult for a secular feminist not to critique the practices and reasoning of any of these because they are active forces in the oppression of women in our milieu. I realize that because the practice of Islam is linked to minority racial groups that there is a fuzziness of line in some peoples' thinking, but my feeling is that this should be secondary to the fact that as a religion and a philosophy, the opression of women is de rigeur and openly advocated - and this should not be respected or tolerated. Certainly not within public institutions. We'd be crying foul over any Christian religious group behaving or advocating for the same things in the same space. I don't see why the reaction to Islam in schools should be any different.

Then again, I feel no qualms about disrespecting religions - no more than the religious feel about disrespecting my system of un-belief.

You know, I was going to rebutt some of the crap, strawmen and other useless juxtapositions in that linked blog, but I simply cannot be fucking bothered. I waste too much of my time combatting sexist crap in my real life, I need not do it in a so called progressive space that makes it clearer all the time they are not a feminist space.

The problem is that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are anti-feminist at their cores. It's difficult for a secular feminist not to critique the practices and reasoning of any of these because they are active forces in the oppression of women in our milieu. I realize that because the practice of Islam is linked to minority racial groups that there is a fuzziness of line in some peoples' thinking, but my feeling is that this should be secondary to the fact that as a religion and a philosophy, the opression of women is de rigeur and openly advocated - and this should not be respected or tolerated. Certainly not within public institutions. We'd be crying foul over any Christian religious group behaving or advocating for the same things in the same space. I don't see why the reaction to Islam in schools should be any different.

Not all rights are absolute and there is a hierarchy of rights. The right to gender equality trumps religion. Public school is one of the places where this needs to be impressed on youth. Freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion. Isn't that why public schools have ceased morning prayers? We live in a secular society. Very few (if any) people here would support Christian prayers led by a priest in a public school. Why must we support the same thing when the prayers are Muslim?

If the students sincerely believe they need to pray on a Friday afternoon then excuse them from school during that time. That would be a reasonable accomodation. If the students don't come back after they're done praying then give them detention or whatever it is that schools do for dicipline these days. Reasonable accomodation does not require that school spaced be used for a religious service.

Yep....it just us western women's racism and "Islamophobia" at work....not nuttin to do with sexist religion and operant conditioning and opening the door for fully funded religious public schools.

So...we are supposed to ignore the reality that women in predominently Muslim countries are oppressed and are supposed to somehow believe that won't happen here too and if it does we are just supposed to accept it as 'choice'. Even though we know through history religion has done sweet fuck all for equality and women's rights. In fact quite the opposite.